4.7 Article

Serial Intravascular Ultrasound Analysis of the Main and Side Branches in Bifurcation Lesions Treated With the T-Stenting Technique

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.042

关键词

coronary disease; bifurcation; restenosis; ultrasonic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This study sought to investigate the mechanism of restenosis and the predictive value of post-procedural minimum stent area (MSA) in the side branch (SB) after coronary bifurcation stenting. Background The mechanism of restenosis, especially at the SB ostium, has not been fully elucidated. Methods This study examined 73 bifurcation lesions with post-procedural and 9-month follow-up intravascular ultrasound images for both main vessel (MV) and SB. All lesions were treated with drug-eluting stents using the T-stenting technique. Analysis included 5 distinct locations: MV proximal stent, MV middle area, MV distal stent, SB ostium (<5 mm distal to the neocarina), and SB distal stent. Results Stent expansion was significantly less in the SB than in the MV (87.1 +/- 20.4% vs. 97.0 +/- 29.1%, p = 0.007). The SB ostium was the most frequent site of post-procedural MSA. At the SB ostium, follow-up minimum lumen area (MLA) correlated with post-procedural MSA (r = 0.81, p < 0.001). The percentage of neointimal area was higher at the SB ostium than at the MV proximal, MV distal, and SB distal stent (23.8 +/- 18.9% vs. 13.3 +/- 17.3%, 15.4 +/- 20.5%, and 12.5 +/- 17.2%, p < 0.001). The optimal threshold of post-procedural MSA to predict follow-up MLA >= 4 mm(2) at the SB ostium was 4.83 mm(2), yielding an area under the curve of 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 0.95). Conclusions Our data suggest that inadequate post-procedural MSA with increased neointimal hyperplasia may cause the SB ostium to be the most frequent site of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention on bifurcation lesions. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54:110-7) (C) 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据